When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa first saw the results of a poll he commissioned on voters’ attitudes toward an education bond, his trademark grin must have stretched from ear to ear. From his point of view, the numbers couldn’t have been better.

First, the poll indicated that Angelenos lack trust in the Los Angeles Unified School District. That’s understandable given that the district has wasted millions on its payroll system, charges kids to use its sports facilities and allows a third of its students to drop out.

And despite raising $20 billion for school construction, the LAUSD has yet to fully deliver on its promises of small learning communities and adequate facilities for charter schools. Worse, after assuring voters in 2004 that its fourth bond in seven years would be the last, it now wants yet another.

What’s astonishing is not that 73 percent of the poll’s respondents believe the school board is doing a poor or “just fair” job overseeing the district, but that 27 per responded differently.

Yet more astonishing is that, despite the public’s rightful apprehension about L.A. Unified, voters are prepared to pass a new bond anyway. Support ranged anywhere from 60 percent to 70 percent.

At issue isn’t some meager sum of money, either. The poll inquired about bonds in amounts of $3.2 billion, $6 billion or $10 billion – figures that would pack a wallop, for many years to come, on the average homeowner’s property tax bill.

What does it tell us that Angelenos are willing to be so generous with a school district in which they place so little faith?

It tells us that Angelenos are committed to their children. And that we will spend dearly to try to provide them with a better education, even if that means throwing millions or billions away in the process.

That is an awesome commitment – one that school-district officials would do well to ponder. L.A. residents are willing to sacrifice greatly for their children. If only this dedication were matched by a feckless bureaucracy that’s long taken the public for granted.

Still, as rosy as those numbers look for the district, they’re no guarantee that another bond measure will pass.

For starters, the poll had a very small sample size – just 100 voters – so its results may not be representative of the broader electorate.

What’s more, as the public begins to absorb the countless tax increases that await it on the upcoming ballot – including a parcel tax to fight gangs and a sales tax hike to expand transit – its appetite for further levies will wane. At a time when gas and grocery prices consume an ever-larger share of the average family budget, voters might just conclude that they can’t afford to pour more money into LAUSD.

That’s where Villaraigosa enters the picture. Villaraigosa has long understood L.A.’s commitment to its schools, and its yearning for change. It was his pledge to reform L.A. schools – which is not traditionally the mayor’s job – that propelled him into office in 2005. And it’s what has generated strong support for his education-reform efforts, even though they’ve been severely whittled down due to resistance from the educational bureaucracy.

Whereas the district’s usual cast of characters might have a hard time selling a bond, Villaraigosa’s chances for success are much better.

Which is, no doubt, why the mayor and the district joined forces recently to announce that the new bond would go to fund small learning communities and charter schools. Never mind that the details are sketchy; the promise is compelling. These are the places where most Angelenos would like to see their money go, campuses that show real signs of improvement and not the same old factories of failure.

In these tough times, the district will need the mayor’s help to sell its bond. That, in turn, will give him leverage to get the support – and funding – his school reform effort needs.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.